]>NUPHB14541S05503213(19)30003310.1016/j.nuclphysb.2019.01.001The AuthorsHigh Energy Physics – PhenomenologyFig. 1Best fitting line for the FLRW model (red, upper curve) and the QFC model (green, lower curve), the quantitative results are given in Table 1 (upper panel). Residuals errors of the χ2 fit of the QFC model (lower panel). (For interpretation of the colors in the figure(s), the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)Fig. 1Fig. 2Contour which obtains a better χSNe2 than the Friedmann model as a function of the two new parameters introduced for different value of Ωm0. For left to right, we displayed Ωm0=0.27,0.31,0.33, observe the different scale for the difference of χSNe2. The red regions are nonphysical with δGδΛ < 0. Equation (5) has been also represented in blue. Observe that for instance for Ωm0=0.33, it is possible to find values for δG and δΛ linked by the relation (5) giving a better χSNe2 than the one of the FLRW model.Fig. 2Table 1The best fit parameters for the two models under consideration and the associated χ2, together with the 95% confidence intervals. Note that the relation (5) is enforced. The left panel is for supernovae alone, the middle panel for BAO alone and the right panel is for the join fit of supernovae and BAO.Table 1Ωm0δGχSNe2Ωm0δGχBAO2
flat FLRW0.30 ± 0.03–0.9310.30 ± 0.05–1.36
QFC model0.29 ± 0.07−0.090 ± 0.70.9320.34 ± 0.220.23 ± 0.321.55

Ωm0δGχSNe+BAO2
flat FLRW0.30 ± 0.02–0.934
QFC model0.30 ± 0.06−0.027 ± 0.380.936
A model of interacting dark fluids tested with supernovae and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations dataDamienBéguéadamienb@kth.seClémentStahlb⁎clement.stahl@pucv.clSheShengXuecxue@icra.itaMax Planck Institute for extraterrestrial Physics, Giessenbachstrasse 1, 85748 Garching, GermanyMax Planck Institute for extraterrestrial PhysicsGiessenbachstrasse 1Garching85748GermanybInstituto de Física, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Casilla 4950, Valparaíso, ChileInstituto de FísicaPontificia Universidad Católica de ValparaísoCasilla 4950ValparaísoChilecICRANet, Piazzale della Repubblica 10, 65122 Pescara, ItalyICRANetPiazzale della Repubblica 10Pescara65122Italy⁎Corresponding author.Editor: HongJian HeAbstractWe compare supernovae and Baryon Acoustic Oscillations data to the predictions of a cosmological model of interacting dark matter and dark energy. This theoretical model can be derived from the effective field theory of Einstein–Cartan gravity with two scaling exponents δG and δΛ, related to the interaction between dark matter and dark energy. We perform a χ2 fit to the data to compare and contrast it with the standard ΛCDM model. We then explore the range of parameter of the model which gives a better χ2 than the standard cosmological model. All those results lead to tight constraints on the scaling exponents of the model. Our conclusion is that this class of models, provides a decent alternative to the ΛCDM model.1IntroductionThe acceleration of the expansion of the Universe has come to a huge surprise to most of the scientific community more than 15 years ago [1,2]. In modern cosmology, many hypotheses have been proposed to drive the accelerated period of expansion. Among these models is the ubiquitous dark fluid christen dark energy having an equation of state (EoS) corresponding to vacuum energy. This proposal is part of the standard model of cosmology called ΛCDM which requires the universe to be made of an hypothetical dark energy fluid, in addition to the baryonic matter and dark matter. Since 1999, many independent cosmological observations, such as Cosmic Microwave Background radiation [3], have pointed towards the existence of dark energy. However, if its existence relies on a well established observational basis, its nature is still an opaque mystery. Different proposals include, among others, dynamical dark energy (quintessence) [4], dynamical backreaction [5], inhomogeneous cosmologies [6,7] and modified gravity [8]. More recently, mainly on phenomenological ground, it has been discovered that allowing an interaction between dark energy and dark matter offers an interesting and attractive alternative to the standard model of cosmology. Such a phenomenological interaction is possible as the nature of the dark matter fluid is also poorly constrained and that general relativity only requires the total energy momentum to be conserved, but not the partial ones.Interacting dark energy models [9–25] rely on the idea that dark energy and dark matter do not evolve separately but interact with each other nongravitationally (see also the recent review [26] and references therein). Most of the studies on interacting dark fluids focus on the relation to the cosmological data introducing an ad hoc coupling between dark matter and dark energy [20,27]. A classification of those models was given in [28]. In this work, we adopt a theoretical model arising directly from the quantum field theory of Einstein–Cartan gravity [21,29] and perform the link to a set of observational data: the supernovae Ia (hereafter SNe Ia).Interacting dark energy models are known to solve the coincidence problem: in the present universe the contributions of dark matter and dark energy to the cosmic budget are of the same order, while their respective evolutions are drastically different throughout the cosmic history. Let ρc0=3H02/(8πG0) be the critical energy density and ρm,Λ be the energy densities of the dark matter and dark energy fluids. Here H0 is the Hubble constant and G0 is the gravitational constant. In the following, quantities with a subscript or superscript 0 are measured in the present universe. We define Ωm and ΩΛ as the ratio between energy densities of dark matter and dark energy and the critical energy density:(1)Ωm,Λ≡ρm,Λρc0. Knowing that the parameters Ωm and ΩΛ vary differently with redshift z, with Ωm∝(1+z)3 and ΩΛ∝ΩΛ0, the fact that Ωm0∼ΩΛ0 is fairly unnatural: we are observing our Universe in a very peculiar epoch. Observe that with these definitions, the Friedmann equation is nothing but a constraint equation between the two fluids, namely Ωm0+ΩΛ0=1.The model considered in this paper relies on the Einstein–Cartan gravitational theory and the universe would be in the scale invariant ultraviolet fixed point of the theory, which we refer as Quantum Field Cosmology (QFC) model. It has been shown in [21,29] that it is possible from this very general theory to propose an expression for the luminosity distance, and hence compare it to observational data. This paper aims at realizing this possibility and investigating whether this model, as other interacting dark energy models, offers a viable alternative to the ΛCDM model. Our article shares the same spirit as [30] or [31,32]: not only it provides a phenomenological interacting dark energy framework, but it also presents theoretical motivations arising from quantum field theory. This article is divided as follows: in section 2 and 3, we present the basic equations of the QFC model and calculate an expression for the luminosity distance. In section 4, we perform a χ2 fit to the supernovae data. In section 4, we include a second data set from Baryon Acoustic Oscillations (BAO) and perform a joint data analysis. Motivated by the encouraging results, we investigate in section 6 more systematically the parameter space of our model by asking the following question: which range of the parameter space of the QFC model offers a better alternative than the ΛCDM model from the supernovae data. Finally, we give conclusions and perspectives in section 7.2Quantum field cosmologyAs one of the fundamental theories for interactions in Nature, the classical Einstein theory of gravity, which plays an essential role in the standard model of modern cosmology (ΛCDM), should be realized in the scalinginvariant domain of a fixed point of its quantum field theory.11It was suggested by Weinberg [33] that the quantum field theory of gravity regularized with an ultraviolet (UV) cutoff might have a nontrivial UVstable fixed point and asymptotic safety, namely the renormalization group (RG) flows are attracted into the UVstable fixed point with a finite number of physically renormalizable operators for the gravitational field. It was proposed [21,29] that the present (lowredshift z<1) cosmology is realized in the scalinginvariant domain of an ultravioletstable fixed point (∼G0) of the quantum field theory of Einstein gravity,22Instead, the inflationary cosmology could be realized in the scalinginvariant domain of an ultravioletunstable fixed point G˜0≠G0. and is described by(2)H2=H02[Ωm0a−3+δG+ΩΛ0a−δΛ],(3)adH2da+2H2=H02[2ΩΛ0a−δΛ−(1+3ωm)Ωm0a−3+δG]. Here, a is the scale factor, H=a˙/a is the Hubble parameter. Here pΛ,m are the pressures of the dark fluids. In deriving Equations (2) and (3), motivated by observations, it was assumed that the curvature is null k=0, implying ΩΛ0+Ωm0=1. In addition, in the framework of QFC model, both the gravitation constant and ΩΛ/ΩΛ0 can vary, following the scaling evolutions G/G0≈aδG and ΩΛ/ΩΛ0≈a−δΛ, where a=(1+z)−1≳1. In other words, the evolution of the two dark sectors is described by the two critical indexes δG and δΛ. The dark energy and matter interact and can be converted from one to another. They obey the generalized Bianchi identity (total energy conservation),(4)adda[(G/G0)(ΩΛ+Ωm)]=−3(G/G0)(1+ωm)Ωm, where effective variations of the gravitational coupling constant and of the cosmological constant generalize the standard Bianchi identity. For small redshift, assuming δΛ<δG≪1, Equation (4) leads to the relation(5)δΛ=(Ωm0ΩΛ0)δG>0. In this article, such a quantum field cosmology (QFC) model with theoretical parameters Ωm0, ΩΛ0, δG and δΛ is compared with the observational cosmology, the case of δG=δΛ=0 reducing to the ΛCDM model.3Effective EoS and interaction of dark energy and matterIn the ΛCDM model, the Friedmann equations read:(6)H2=8πG3(ρm+ρΛ),(7)a¨a=−4πG3(ρm+ρΛ+3pm+3pΛ) Equations (2) and (3) in the QFC model can be obtained by phenomenologically introducing a slight deformation of the evolution of the dark sector of our Universe, obtained from the Friedmann equations:(8)ρm=ρm0a−3+δG,(9)ρΛ=ρΛ0a−δΛ. Using definitions (8) and (9) in equations (6) and (7), one recovers equations (2) and (3) of the QFC model, given the EoS pΛ=−ρΛ and pm=0. Therefore, the parameters δG and δΛ of equations (8) and (9) correspond to the parameters of the QFC model discussed in section 2. The total conservation of dark energy and matter leads to the constraint (5) on δG and δΛ.Although the parameters δG and δΛ are motivated by the QFC model, these parameters can also be explored on phenomenological grounds. It leads to another interpretation of parameters δG and δΛ.Using the individual conservation of the energy momentum tensors for the dark matter and dark energy sectors respectively(10)ρ˙m,Λ+3H(1+ωm,Λ)ρm,Λ=0, and the Friedmann equation (6), we find that the parameters δG and δΛ in Eq. (2) can be interpreted as effective modifications of the EoS with(11)ωm=−δG3(12)ωΛ=−1+δΛ3.Besides, assuming the standard EoS (ωm=0,ωΛ=−1), it is also possible to relate the parameters δG and δΛ to an interaction between dark matter and dark energy by introducing an interaction term Q(13)ρ˙m+3Hρm=+Q,(14)ρ˙Λ=−Q. In this case, the interaction term Q can be effectively expressed:(15)Q=HδGρm=HδΛρΛ, which leads also to the relation (5). Such interaction terms have been shown to alleviate the coincidence problem [22]. We stress that this last interpretation in term of Q of the deformation the dark sector (8) (9) is valid only for small redshifts (z≪1), as otherwise the different evolutions in redshift for ρm and ρΛ invalidate (15). To obtain the general interaction term, one needs to consider the general evolution of the effective gravitational constant in equation (36) of [21] but this investigation is out of the scope of this paper.In this article, we will treat the parameters δG and δΛ in Eq. (2) as free parameters determined by the observational cosmology. Observe that in order to have a coherent model of dark energy, the constraint δGδΛ>0 must be fulfilled. In this case, the parameters δG and δΛ can be interpreted as the rate of conversion of dark matter into dark energy and of dark energy into dark matter. A phenomenological investigation shows that increasing δG or decreasing δΛ induces an acceleration of the expansion of the universe: dark matter is converted into dark energy. Conversely, decreasing δG or increasing δΛ induces a deceleration of the expansion of the universe: dark energy is converted into dark matter.The luminosity distance can be obtained(16)dL(z)=cH0(1+z)∫111+zdaa2ΩΛ0a−δΛ+Ωm0aδG−3, where the speed of light c is included for clarity. An analytic representation of the integral readsdL(z)=2cH01+zΩm0(1−δG)×[ 2F1(1,4−δΛ−2δG2(3−δΛ−δG),7−δΛ−3δG2(3−2δΛ−δG);−ΩΛ0Ωm0)−(1+z)3−δGΩm0+(1+z)δΛΩΛ0(1+z)2−δG× 2F1(1,4−δΛ−2δG2(3−δΛ−δG),7−2δΛ−3δG2(3−δΛ−δG);−ΩΛ0Ωm0(1+z)−3+δG+δΛ)], where F12 is the hypergeometric function defined as: F12(a,b,c;z)≡∑n=0∞(a)n(b)n(c)nznn!, with the Pochhammer symbol (x)n given by: (x)n≡Γ(x+n)Γ(x). This equation is derived under the assumption of a flat universe, that is to say Ωm0+ΩΛ0=1. We now turn to the analysis of the observational data in the light of the QFC model.4Fit to supernovae dataIn this section and in the next one, the relation given by equation (5) is enforced. It gives a constraint between the two new parameters of the QFC model. In section 6, this constraint is relaxed in order to study a broader range of the parameter space. We are now in position to perform a χ2 fit with the Union 2.1 compilation released by the Supernova Cosmology Project [34]. It is composed of 580 uniformly analyzed SNe Ia. We minimize the reduced χ2 defined as:(17)χSNe2(parameters)≡1Ndof∑i=1580[dL(i)−dL(parameter)ΔdL(i)]2 where ΔdL(i) is the observational error bar for each data point indexed by i and Ndof is the number of degree of freedom given by the number of data points subtracted to the number of free parameters of the model. We fix H0=70.4kmMpc.s. A comparison of the result for QFC model and the standard flat FLRW model (δG=δΛ=0) is presented in the left panel of Table 1 together with the 95% confidence interval. Fig. 1 displays the resulting Hubble diagram for both models and the residual of the fit for the QFC model.From Table 1, we note that the parameters of the Friedmann model are recovered with reasonable precision. However, there is a strong degeneracy between δG and Ωm0 for the QFC model (the fit gives a correlation coefficient equal to 95%). To investigate this issue, in section 6 we inspect in more details the parameter space of the QFC model without imposing any constraints.Only with SNe Ia the value Ωm is poorly constrained (see Table 1) but with joined data sets, the current best value is Ωm=0.308±0.012 [3]. An important point is that for most of interacting dark energy models both the dark matter and the baryonic matter fluids are assumed to interact with the dark energy, but as the nature of the baryonic matter is known from ground experiment, the type of interaction allowed between this matter and the hypothetical dark energy is strongly constrained. Therefore a more conservative approach would be to allow only dark matter (accounting for ΩDM=0.268±0.013 [3]) to interact with dark energy and account for this interaction with a new term in the bias quantity describing the different behavior of the baryonic matter and the dark matter in the cosmic history. The fact that the best fit from the QFC model is lower (Ωm=0.29) might be a hint pointing to this requirement of having noninteracting baryonic matter [35]. In order to improve the constraint of the parameter δg, we now turn to a second dataset and perform a second data analysis in the next section.5Including data from Baryon Acoustic OscillationsIn this section, following similar works such as [36], we include data from Baryon Acoustic Oscillation. We use 8 effective BAO points from [37–40]. We compute the QFT prediction for the following quantity:(18)DV=((1+z)2DA2czH(z))1/3, where DA(z)=dL(1+z)2 given in (16) and H(z) in equation (2). We minimize the reduced χBAO2 defined as:(19)χBAO2(parameters)≡1Ndof∑i=18[DV(i)−DV(parameter)ΔDV(i)]2. After minimizing (19), we perform a joint data analysis of BAO+SNe Ia, minimizing (17)+(19). This joint analysis improves the constraint on both Ωm and δg for the QFC model. Tables 1 sum up our findings.While the inclusion of another data set helps to reduce the errorbar on the determination of Ωm0 and δg in the QFC model, we see that they are still a degeneracy between the two parameters of the QFC model and a much more robust data analysis is required in order to break it. Motivated by the results of this section, we now turn on the second scaling exponent δΛ of the QFC model.6Parameter space studyIn this section, we drop the relation (5) in order to explore the parameter space δGδΛ with supernovae data, for set values of ΩΛ0 and Ωm0 compatible with constraints from cosmological observations. The purpose of this section is to identify regions for which the χSNe2 of the QFC model (equation (17)) is smaller than that of the ΛCDM model.On Fig. 2, we plotted the difference of χSNe2 between the QFC and Friedmann models for different values of Ωm. It is found that a large zone of the parameter space allows for the QFC model to have a smaller χSNe2 than the one of the Friedmann model, constraining thus the QFC model. Fig. 2 also shows the different quadrants allowing a physical QFC models satisfying the constraint δGδΛ>0. The linear relation (5) is also displayed in blue. We see that, depending on the value for Ωm, it is not certain to have values for δG and δΛ allowing for a better χ2SNe than the FLRW together with the relation (5).7Discussion and conclusionWe presented a new model for interacting dark energy arising from the effective field theory of Einstein–Cartan gravity in section 2 and explored its observational consequences on supernovae Ia and BAO. We compared and contrasted it with the standard ΛCDM model assuming equation (5). We then explored the parameter space for this model to know for which value of the parameters, the model has a better χ2 than its FLRW counterpart. We found that if one decreases slightly the matter content of the universe, a substantial zone of the parameter space offers a smaller χ2 than the FLRW model. It could be a possible hint pointing to the need to consider a correction due to interacting dark energy to the halo bias for structure formation, we hope to come back to those questions. It is not the first time that decent alternatives to the ΛCDM model based on a time variation of the cosmological constant and interaction between dark matter and dark energy are explored. The QFC model provides one more example of such an alternative.The QFC model of [21] is also constrained by other independent experiments which constrains the effective variation of the gravitational constant. By Lunar Laser Ranging experiment [41], we find a bound for δG:(20)δG<0.02. Furthermore the effective variations of the gravitational constant should not spoil the bigbang nucleosynthesis which gives therefore an even stringent constraint on the variation of the gravitational constant which translates for our parameters into:(21)δG<O(10−3), depending on the model used for nucleosynthesis [42]. In our notation, δg corresponds to ν in [42].This study is a first step towards better exploring the parameter space and setting constraints on the parameters. As already done for other interacting dark energy models, it needs to be challenged with different independent data sets. An important extension of this work would be to follow the research plan carried for instance in [43] where similar models were confronted to 5 different data sets. We stress that to do so for this model, one needs not only to consider the dynamics explored in equations (2) and (3) which is only valid for small redshift but a more general one given by equation (36) of [21].Authors' contributionsSSX and CS conceived the study based on the model introduced by SSX. CS calculated the luminosity distance and started the data analysis. The more systematic data analysis in section 6 was carried out by DB. CS drafted the manuscript. All authors discussed the results, commented on the article and approved the final manuscript.References[1]A.G.RiessSupernova Search TeamAstron. J.11619981009arXiv:astroph/9805201[2]S.PerlmutterSupernova Cosmology ProjectAstrophys. J.5171999565arXiv:astroph/9812133[3]P.A.R.AdePlanckAstron. Astrophys.5942016A13arXiv:1502.01589[4]S.TsujikawaClass. Quantum Gravity302013214003arXiv:1304.1961[5]T.BuchertGen. Relativ. Gravit.402008467arXiv:0707.2153[6]K.BolejkoM.N.CelerierA.KrasinskiClass. Quantum Gravity282011164002arXiv:1102.1449[7]C.StahlInt. J. Mod. Phys. D2520161650066[8]A.JoyceB.JainJ.KhouryM.TroddenPhys. Rep.56820151arXiv:1407.0059[9]J.A.FriemanB.A.GradwohlPhys. Rev. Lett.6719912926[10]B.A.GradwohlJ.A.FriemanAstrophys. J.3981992407[11]C.WetterichAstron. Astrophys.3011995321arXiv:hepth/9408025[12]L.AmendolaPhys. Rev. D622000043511arXiv:astroph/9908023[13]L.AmendolaPhys. Rev. D692004103524arXiv:astroph/0311175[14]S.LeeG.C.LiuK.W.NgPhys. Rev. D732006083516arXiv:astroph/0601333[15]V.PettorinoC.BaccigalupiPhys. Rev. D772008103003arXiv:0802.1086[16]J.ValiviitaE.MajerottoR.MaartensJ. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.08072008020arXiv:0804.0232[17]J.H.HeB.WangJ. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.08062008010arXiv:0801.4233[18]M.B.GavelaD.HernandezL.Lopez HonorezO.MenaS.RigolinJ. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.09072009034Erratum:J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.10052010E01arXiv:0901.1611[19]V.FaraoniJ.B.DentE.N.SaridakisPhys. Rev. D902014063510arXiv:1405.7288[20]V.SalvatelliN.SaidM.BruniA.MelchiorriD.WandsPhys. Rev. Lett.1132014181301arXiv:1406.7297[21]S.S.XueNucl. Phys. B8972015326arXiv:1410.6152[22]E.G.M.FerreiraJ.QuintinA.A.CostaE.AbdallaB.WangPhys. Rev. D952017043520arXiv:1412.2777[23]T.S.KoivistoE.N.SaridakisN.TamaniniJ. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.15092015047arXiv:1505.07556[24]S.KumarR.C.NunesPhys. Rev. D942016123511arXiv:1608.02454[25]S.KumarR.C.NunesPhys. Rev. D962017103511arXiv:1702.02143[26]B.WangE.AbdallaF.AtrioBarandelaD.PavonRep. Prog. Phys.792016096901arXiv:1603.08299[27]R.MurgiaS.GariazzoN.FornengoJ. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.16042016014arXiv:1602.01765[28]K.KoyamaR.MaartensY.S.SongJ. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.09102009017arXiv:0907.2126[29]S.S.XueInt. J. Mod. Phys. A3020151545003[30]J.SolàA.GómezValentJ.de Cruz PérezAstrophys. J.836201743arXiv:1602.02103[31]E.A.NovikovMod. Phys. Lett. A3120161650092[32]E.A.NovikovElectron. J. Theor. Phys.13201679[33]S.WeinbergUnderstanding the Fundamental Constituents of Matter1977Plenum PressNew York[34]N.SuzukiAstrophys. J.746201285arXiv:1105.3470[35]L.AmendolaD.TocchiniValentiniPhys. Rev. D662002043528arXiv:astroph/0111535[36]J.S.PeracaulaA.GomezValentJ.d.C.PerezarXiv:1811.035052018[37]E.A.KazinMon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.44120143524arXiv:1401.0358[38]H.GilMarínW.J.PercivalL.VerdeJ.R.BrownsteinC.H.ChuangF.S.KitauraS.A.RodríguezTorresM.D.OlmsteadMon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.46520171757arXiv:1606.00439[39]H.GilMarínMon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.47720181604arXiv:1801.02689[40]P.CarterF.BeutlerW.J.PercivalC.BlakeJ.KodaA.J.RossarXiv:1803.017462018[41]J.G.WilliamsS.G.TuryshevD.H.BoggsPhys. Rev. Lett.932611012004arXiv:grqc/0411113[42]J.GrandeJ.SolaJ.C.FabrisI.L.ShapiroClass. Quantum Gravity272010105004arXiv:1001.0259[43]J.Solà PeracaulaJ.de Cruz PérezA.GómezValentEurophys. Lett.121201839001arXiv:1606.00450